So, I wonder what the chances are of talking feminists, pro-feminists and allies to feminists, in particular, out of using the word "godbag," a word I'm currently seeing all over the internet?
So far as I can determine, the word "godbag" must be a derivation of at least one of three sexist, anti-woman slurs: "douche bag", "old bag", and/or "three-bagger."
A douche bag, Dictionary.com says, is a "small syringe with detachable nozzles; used for vaginal lavage and enemas." Of course, "douche bag" is also a sexual slur. The Dictionary of Urban Slang lists 95 separate definitions of "douche bag," all a variation on the following, selected at random:
A member of the male sex who is either very gross, a skank banger or also is just plain dumb.
A girl with an especially fishy poonani.
1. One with undescribeable (sic) fucked up-ness hence stupidity, poor idea of what's cool, possibly an arrogance about them. 2. One with intolerable personality.
Wikipedia includes the term "douche bag" in its list of sexual slurs, which slurs it defines as words "which are or have been used to refer to members of a given sexual minority, gender, sex or sexual orientation in a derogatory or pejorative manner," to wit:
douche bag — (North America) a malicious or ill-intentioned person
Additional related sexual slurs are:
douchefag — (U.S.) a malicious or ill-intentioned person/tool who is homosexual; and
douchehole — (U.S.) see "douche bag"
It could be that "godbag" derives from "old bag," which the Dictionary of Urban Slang defines this way:
1. A haggard, perpetually grumpy, good for nothing elderly woman.
2. A grumpy old bat who doesn't do anything for anyone.
Dictionary.com defines "old bag" as:
an ugly or ill-tempered woman; "he was romancing the old bag for her money"
Another possible etymological root of "godbag" is "three-bagger." The Dictionary of Urban Slang defines "three-bagger" as:
A woman so ugly, use of a bag over her head, your own head (in case hers falls of) and, to prevent lasting psychological damage, your dog's head is required.
I think the term "douche bag" is a sexual slur because male supremacists have pronounced women's vaginas as repulsive, offensive and repugnant, with any object used to wash them most offensive and nasty of all. But I think feminists decided at least 40 years ago that those views are oppressive to women, that they hurt us, and that there is nothing gross or dirty about our vaginas or the implements used to wash them (which are, in general, unnecessary and often cause problems, but that's another conversation for another day.) I think "old bag" and "three-bagger" are simple hate speech, words which express contempt and hatred for women as women.
So I am trying to figure out how women as a people are benefitted by the use of a slur like "godbag," which hearkens to, and derives from, these sexual epithets and slurs. Epithets have their place, I suppose; they communicate disgust and derision handily and efficiently, and there are an infinite number of good reasons to be disgusted over the antics of male supremacist religionists. But why would women use a word with a woman-hating etymology any time as a slur, really, but especially to express disgust towards those in woman-hating religious cultures? Must whatever is disgusting, dirty and offensive invariably be gendered female? Why not call religionists "godstraps"? Probably because (1) nobody would get it, or only a few people would, in that nobody associates jockstraps with what is disgusting, revolting dirty, just men's genitals are not thought to be dirty, revolting or disgusting. There is no apparatus available to clean them, though they are far more likely to need a good hosing down (pardon the term) than women's genitalia; (2) "godstraps" has a sort of good ol' manly men feeling, and as such it just isn't as effective as "godbag" in evoking the desired level of contempt and revulsion. The fact is, no word related to men or the male body evokes the same level of contempt and revulsion as words related to women or the female body, and that is because women remain subordinated to men, mistreated because of our bodies, because we are women. Our bodies must be revolting and disgusting to justify being mistreated because we have the bodies we have.
Maybe the use of this kind of word, this strategy, just in general, is supposed to be a fighting-fire-with-fire kind of a deal, a feminist attempt to out-Rush Rush or out-Howard-Stern, Howard Stern, out-shock-talk shock-talk radio, out-Phelps Phelps. While I understand the impulse, it is wrong-headed and counterproductive. I can't see any benefit in our tolerating our own internalized misogyny, first of all, to the degree that we display it in the words we use. I thought our goal as feminists was to uncover and understand our internalized misogyny in the interests of ditching it, leaving it behind, getting free. And what benefit might inher in parading our unresolved internalized misogyny before a watching world (which sees it for exactly what it is), using it as a weapon, just as it has been used as a weapon against us? Doesn't it make more sense to eliminate sexist words whenever we can, as opposed to inventing and using new ones? And finally, and most important, words like "godbag" alienate the most marginalized, most oppressed of girls and women, many of whom are not "godbags" at all, but who are oppressed, abused, trapped and lost in patriarchal religious subcultures and traditions. They might, if they could figure out a way, get out and move towards feminism, but a feminism which has pronounced them "godbags" hardly appears to be a place of refuge, support or help.
So long as women remain a subjugated, subordinated caste, we will not be able to out-shock-talk the shock-talk deejays or out-Rush Rush. These guys are successful because they pander to, cater to, serve and have the endorsement of white male power. As feminist women, we don't even come close to access to that kind of power. Our use of words like "godbag" may well inspire revulsion and disgust, sure enough, but towards us as women, the caste which originally inspired that language, every bit as much as toward our intended targets. In the end, we end up, in the eyes of male supremacy, old bags, douche bags, and three-baggers calling other people, including women, godbags– pure entertainment for the anti-woman masses, pure poison for our movement.
Heart
Mary Daly has the word god/rod in her Wickedary.
However, I think godbag is better especially if we started spelling it god/bag. It is like reclaiming old bag and making it what it really is – the god bag reversal. When I see or hear godbag, I always put the slash in and unconflate them so to speak. This makes whatever the speaker or writer is saying very clear. God in a bag is funny too. We old crones have a sense of humour.
Hey, Rhondda– I definitely could see the sense of using god/bag positively? Reclaiming “douche bag,” “old bag,” and “three-bagger” in other words. But it wouldn’t work, really, because there is no reclaiming of women while they are still in patriarchal religions. Now goddess/bag– that would work! Godbag as an insult, though, is just same old same old, just a sexual slur.
I agree re the humor, though. I love the humor in Daly’s work and also the way she talks about crones, nags, and hags laughing our heads off.
Heart
You reclaim by be-ing. Daly calls herself a postively revolting hag. On one level it means an old bag. On another it means positively revolting against the patriarchy’s definition of hag. Godbag is such a word. On the surface -Daly’s foreground -it has all the connotations you are describing. In the background, it is a bag full of god which we can reject and throw away.That to me is the sense feminists are using it. Not as a put down of women, but as a put down of the of how the language has defined women. That is what reclaiming is all about. It can be used by us in a covert way because that is how we have to live in a patriarchy.
Rhondda, yes, Daly calls herself a positively revolting hag. But she wouldn’t call, say, pornographers or members of the Religious Right “positively revolting hags” because they do not deserve that term of distinction! Reclaiming is taking a word that has been used against us as women, and turning it into a good thing.
Calling the members of patriarchal religions “godbags” is taking a word, “bags,” that has been used against us, and using it as an insult ourselves. We aren’t reclaiming it– we’re agreeing that “bags” are really nasty and disgusting, whether “douched bags,” or “old bags” or “three baggers” — disgusting enough that we will call members of patriarchal religions that name.
Heart
So thinking about it, if we wanted to reclaim “old bag,” we could call our selves by that term, capitalize it, add some other stuff to it, the way Daly does. I can’t really think of a way to reclaim “three-bagger” though Daly might be able too! Maybe something like, “triple-goddess-in-a-bag,” or something like that. I’m an Old Tripple-Goddess-Bag. I can’t think of a way to redeem “douche bag” — that’s a pretty godawful slur. But in any event, these are words we’d call ourselves. We wouldn’t call Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson a “godbag” or a Triple Goddess Bag — when we use those words as insults, we agree that that is what they are.
Heart
The oxford english reference dictionary:
douche: a jet of liquid applied to the body for cleansing or medicinal purposes.
Bag: a receptacle of flexible material with an opening at the top.
I am a douche bag. I have cleaned out the patriarchy with a bag that has a jet stream of cleansing liquid. Total background wisdom.
Foreground sensitivity: sHe called me a douchebag. Background: Yes dear isn’t it funny.
Foreground; but?
background: Women have always cleaned up the mess and we are the ones who will do it. Now.
Foreground: It hurts to be called a douche bag
Background: It is actually a compliment based on ignorance and fear and to stiffle your energy.
Background: You mean if I say yes I am a douche bag that that will befuddle them?
Background: Oh, I love you dear.
I AM A DOUCHE BAG !!!!
Rhondadd, yes, I understand. I get what you're saying as far as it goes. But you are not following what I have been saying.
What I am talking about in this post is *feminist women* calling patriarchists, religionists, male supremacists and anti-feminists "godbags," a term that derives from "douche bag" (or possibly "old bag" or "three bagger"). The word "godbag" is not a reclaiming. It is the opposite of a reclaiming. That word insults patriarchists, male supremacists and anti-feminists using an anti-woman sexual slur, meaning the person doing the insulting is using anti-woman language as an insult. Unless you're suggesting that calling religious people "godbags" ought to be viewed as a compliment because women have "reclaimed" douche bag! And I know that's not what you're saying.
"Wuss" is a sexual slur. If feminist women decided to reclaim "wuss", that would be one thing. When feminist women or any men or women call men (or women) "wusses," it is just feminist women parading their internalized misogyny. It is women bashing women in the way they have been bashed, turning against one another, betraying one another.
I totally get and like the reinvention of language that Mary Daly does. I love it. I have all Daly's books and have read every one, including her latest, released in 2006. What Daly does is NOT what feminists calling misogynists and religionists "godbags" are doing. When Daly insults male supremacists, patriarchal religionists, and men, period, she doesn't use anti-woman slurs — reclaimed or not — to do so. Ever. She uses anti-MEN slurs. She doesn't call them "wusses," or "godbags," or any derivation thereof. She calls them "phallocrats," "pricks," "snools," "snot boys," "jockocrats," "dicks", "cockocrats", "androlators," "bore-ocrats." None of these words has anything at all to do with women or with sexual slurs against women; they are, in fact, a deconstruction of male supremacist language accomplished in the process of hoisting men on their own misogynist petards.
Of course, feminist women could reclaim "douche bag" if we wanted to. (Well, maybe. Who would want to?) But calling the Religious Right or Fred Phelps or anti-feminist men or women a derivative of a "douche bag" is no reclamation. It is using anti-woman, misogynist rhetoric as an insult in the exact *same* way it is used as an insult against us, as women. And that is just wrong. It does not help or benefit the people of women in any way. Instead, it hurts us.
Heart
I am the spinster aunt responsible, rightly or wrongly, for inventing the word “godbag.” It does not, I’m afraid, derive from any of the sources you cite. A godbag, if you will permit me the impropriety of quoting from my own rather extensive body of work on the subject, is “a bag full of hate and self-loathing wearing stage makeup that makes it look like a televangelist.” The suffix “-bag” alludes, not to a douche or to a woman whose countenance does not conform to patriarchal beauty standards, but to a “sack” or other sort of carryall.
Hey, Twisty, welcome, and thanks for explaining why and how you created the word “godbag,” much appreciated. I didn’t know you were the person who coined that term and am glad to know the history of it.
Are any of the bags full of hate and self-loathing wearing stage makeup that makes them look like a televangelist, and hence, whom you would call godbags, women? Who earns the title of “godbag?” What are the criteria? Is it just anyone who is part of patriarchal religious subcultures, men, women, girls, boys? Or anyone who is part of any sort of religion?
Heart/Cheryl
Ugh, all those questions seem rude. I didn’t mean them to!
Heart/Cheryl
hm. first off, cheryl, i have suffered through this debate within myself over the term p*ssy. i worked on the grill line with a bunch of guys for about five years and the best word to call a guy was p*ssy. it shocked and silenced a lot of men, because they thought it was the one word (outside of c*nt) that all women hated, so if they called me that, they had a power over me. so reversing that and not only calling *them* that, but calling them that on a regular basis with a lot of feeling in it, eventually stopped them from their perpetual hazing and “testing”. so there was a poltical use for me to take control of that word and use it against men in a way that they would use it against me.
but now, i find myself *still* using that word (out of habit mostly)–even tho i am not longer in a position where it does me any political good. it’s just me being lazy. so i definitly agree with you–sexualized words that are used to degrade women are still degrading to women when women are using the words. and while i see the political point of some women “reclaiming” offensivelly sexualized words (as in the case of a woman turning the power structure around on its head)–for the most part, i don’t think your average woman calling herself a douche bag is reclaiming anything. i can see the point, i really can, but for the most part, i don’t agree with it.
in regards to the godbag thing. doesn’t make any sense to me.
Thanks for those good thoughts, brownfemipower. Using those words against men is sort of a hair of the dog that bit you, like taking a drink of whiskey to medicate your really bad hangover.
Mostly I'm kind of alarmed about how far and wide the "godbag" thing has spread. On the one hand, there really are some horrendous godbags who make our lives so miserable as women. And I hear Twisty when she says she didn't mean that word to be anti-woman or a slur against women– I just think that's how it will be heard anyway, even though she didn't mean it that way. That's what I heard, so I think it's fair to say other people will hear that, as well. So I'd rather call out the specific godbags for their godbagging, and especially since I don't know what a godbag really is. I mean, there are a lot lot lot of amazing amazing women doing feminist work *inside* of religions which are led by godbags. I don't think those women are godbags? I just think words like this keep us from making important distinctions where it's critical to make those distinctions. I also know many, many women, and have worked with them and still work with them, who have exited horrendously patriarchal religious subcultures. I know there are lots more where those women come from and I would hate for them to think feminists are calling them godbags because they haven't made their way out yet.
Heart
Another definition of godbag is “scripture-quoting asshole.” But, like any word, it can and does acquire broader connotations as it makes the rounds.
I mean, there are a lot lot lot of amazing amazing women doing feminist work *inside* of religions which are led by godbags. I don’t think those women are godbags?
this is a *very* good point–there is always this belief on the part of far to many lefties that religion is an unchangably conservative thing…and to be sure, you’re never going to change pat robertson or any of those folks. but there *are* many women within the rank and file christians who are doing some really amazing feminist things–and liberation theology proves all by itself that christianity doesn’t *have* to be conservative. but i think that the rank and file christians need that space and protection to be able to get their work done (by which, i mean “liberalizing” the conservatives)–constantly attacking christians only pushes their cause farther into a corner.
and liberation theology proves all by itself that christianity doesn’t *have* to be conservative
So true. A while back I encountered a really interesting woman, a radical feminist who had been central to getting one of the first women’s studies programs going in one of the most prestigious universities in the country. She and I spent some time together and it was interesting and I enjoyed it, but I encountered something with her that I have encountered at other times and it was frustrating. She had an absolute no-tolerance policy for any sort of religious beliefs when it came to feminists. She thought that all religion, of whatever sort, belief in any sort of deity, was at odds and inconsistent with feminism. She was talking even about wicce, goddess theology. She thought it was all illegitimate, an attempt to pole vault over the difficult work of politics and revolution by way of manipulative behaviors masquerading as religious practices. I’ve encountered this several times with radical feminists especially and when I do, I start talking about what, for only oneof many examples, liberation theology has accomplished in the world. Those discussions have just never been productive in my experience, though! On the other hand, I met another woman, radical feminist, who knew the first one actually! We got to talking and it is her view that once women have lived and worked, led activisit lives as radical feminists for a few decades, if they don’t have some sort of spirituality, something, in her experience they tend to become bullies because after you’ve done all the feminist process and activism and writing and talking and so forth and change eludes you, well, it is very frustrating. Without some trust even in just the universe, karma, fate, something like that, you can think the only hope is for you to get busy and knock a few heads together.
It’s hard for those who have not experienced it to understand, too, that woman-centered community *within* godbag-led community (!) can be revolutionary. This is what jeyoani, my daughter, was referencing in her birthing posts. The woman-centered birthing movement was conducted not so much under the auspices of feminism in this country, although the midwifery movement WAS feminist– the MANA mission statement quotes Mary Daly, Sarah Lucia Hoagland, and Sonia Johnson, all militant radical feminists, all lesbian separatists! So how did that happen, has been my eternal lament. But anyway, the work of revolution, as it turned out, happened to a large extent amongst radical religious women, which is why jeyoani found those radical, woman-centered books in my library when I was still part of an abusive, oppressive, religious group.
Ack, gotta go to work. I’ll be back!
Heart
[...] The Margins: “Godbags”: Contempt, Gendered So, I wonder what the chances are of talking feminists, pro-feminists and allies to feminists, in particular, out of using the word “godbag,” a word I’m currently seeing all over the internet? [...]
I have to question the idea that ‘douchebag’ is a misogynist insult when uttered by a feminist. I don’t have any personal experience with douching — I have the wrong set of equipment for that — but, as I understand it, the douchebag is a device marketed to women based on their insecurities about their bodies, and which serves primarily to turn a balanced, and healthy vagina into an unpleasant mess by throwing the natural bacterial balance off-kilter. In other words, a douche is a perfect tool of oppression — literally replacing the fact (beauty, health, and self-confidence) with the patriarchal myth (unpleasantness, discomfort, and insecurity). I can’t think of a more apt label for those who would do the same by other means.
You left out ’scumbag,’ from which I always assumed ‘godbag’ derived.
I don’t like the terms “godbags,” or “godbaggers,” either, but I don’t see anything antifeminist about the terms. The primary association I have is “windbag.” It also connects with the hunting expression of “bagging” game, shooting it to take home. These are not just old-fashioned “godbotherers,” they are aiming to have the deity dead (or at least badly hurt and incapable of acting) and in their pockets.
Dang, I was thinking it resonated nicely with “windbag” and “scumbag,” as others here mentioned. To me the suffix “-bag” tends to connote “sack,” as in garbage, manure, or (would it be too anti-male to say it?) testicles. No offense intended there guys!
[...] No, this isn’t going to be a post on how I met Caitlin Flanagan and she recruited me. This post is in defense of the term “douchebag” as an insult. This is necessary because of this post claiming that terms ending in “bag” are inherently sexist. And you don’t pick on Twisty’s glorious coinage “godbag” without tangling with me. I can think of a shitload of terms that end with “bag” that have no sexist connotations to them, including “windbag” and “shitbag”, both of which actually tend to be aimed at men way more than women. [...]
I really think the “douche” part is sexist. We use the term cobag (for colostomy bag), and since the bag is not really added on as a suffix, it’s part of the actual term, I feel like it is OK. And lots of things appended with bag do not derive from their relationship to the term douchebag, in fact it is the otherway around, as commenters have mentioned scumbag, windbag, munchbag, comabag, chunderbag and muffinbag.
What about ‘cobag’ … short for colostomy bag? The Urban Dictionary defines it as ‘gender neutral’.
Thanks for all of these good thoughts about the term “godbag.” If ‘”godbag” hearkens to “windbag” or “scumbag,” hey, I’m there. Because men who are male-deity-worshipping, scripture-invoking, heirarchical, patriarchal pricks are indeed windbags and scumbags.
But I’d prefer to call them pricks, because that’s what they are, and that at least begins to get them where it hurts. Followed by windbags and scumbags because that’s also what they are. In part it’s the rhythm of “godbag” that is evocative to me of “douchebag”.
I’ve still got another problem, though, even if we dispense with the possible douchebag etymology. I don’t think there are any woman godbags, if godbags are as Twisty defines them. I have known many, many amazing, independent, revolutionary women doing incredible work inside of kingdoms created by (always male) godbags. And I know that inside of scripture-quoting televangelism-style godbaggery, women don’t have any real power. They do their best given the situation they are in, and sometimes their best kicks major ass, and I’ll be writing some about that soon.
Heart/Cheryl
I realize that patriarchy has everything by the throat, but how about asshole instead of prick. I certainly realize the penis is the ultimate tool of the patriarchy and will remain so for a long time, but is it fair? Wait, since women get the short end of the stick on everything, I certainly think it is OK to use cock, prick, dick, etc. but that is the opening through which the trolls will roll. Chunkyfarts they are.
The problem is, though, that “asshole” and “prick” have delicate shades of meaning that differentiate one from the other. An “asshole” knows he is being a jerk (behaving offensively), but a “prick” can be clueless, and is often blinded by privilege. These essential shades of meaning make it impossible to replace one word with another. When a pejorative is lost, it’s individuality and uniqueness is lost…..are we really willing to utterly lose these insults?
Not to mention anybody can be an asshole, but only men can be pricks.
As to, as you put it, Kathy, the “essential shades of meaning”, thanks for all the discussion on everybody’s sites! Really great. (And funny!
) And productive, I think.
Heart/Cheryl
[...] Something was really bothering me about Heart’s argument that “godbag” must be derived from “douchebag” or possibly “old bag,” but I’m ashamed to say that I didn’t realize exactly what it was until I read the comments threads at pandagon and at Heart’s own blog: [...]
[...] On April 19th, Heart at Women’s Space posted her concern that the term of opprobrium “godbag,” typically aimed at religious hypocrits, was sexist in nature because it was derived from “douchebag.” [...]
What I don’t like about the word prick is that I have seen men smiling proudly when called pricks, as though it were a compliment. It doesn’t insult them enough.
it is hard to make a slur without it hearkening back to some gender ,race,
class derogatory word
as Gerda Lerner says gender, race and class are all sourced in patriarchy
[...] emailed saint michael the results of the poll, along with a selection of heart’s writings on the term, and reiterated my previous sentiment: “you are [...]
I first heard the word godbag on this site. Actually I saw the word, I didn’t “hear” it.
I tend to use very plain words in talking about the religious right. Patriarchal pigs is a favorite, male supremacists is another.
Oppressor is a good word, and woman hating male god puppet is another.
Mary Daly really has the best insults around, and has a great dictionary of them.
I wouldn’t use godbag personally, because it doesn’t name the enemy the way male supremcist does, or patriarchy does, for that matter. Windbag I suppose is its derivation.